coalkirk wrote:You should get used to the idea that we are never leaving Iraq. We quietly built a number of huge bases there and refurbished a huge air base the Russians abandoned. We are there to stay and anyone (politician) who says otherwise is being dishonest. Hopefully our combat role will diminsh more over time but the US presence in Iraq is more or less permanent. While I'm all in favor of developing alternative energy sources, our economy and indeed the world economy is and will be for a long time, highly oil dependant. We can't afford for some nut job like Ahmadijhad in Iran to choke off the world supply of oil. Like it or not, we need to be the 800lb gorrilla in the region. Hey, I'm doing my part! I haven't burned a single drop of oil this heating season.

After thinking about it some more, I guess the question really is what is the purpose/need of us staying in the area?

1. If the purpose is to ensure large stocks of product remain available for Exxon-Mobil to keep earming record profits each month, than I guess a large military presence,for the forseable future in Iraq makes sense.

2. If our purpose is (as stated) to provide provide a chance for the Iraqi people to rid themselves of a brutal tyrrant & have a chance at creating a real Democracy, then the war is over...Saddam Hussein & his sons are dead & we have done all we can already. The ball is in their court.

3. If our purpose (again as stated) is to accomplish the goals stated in #2 above PLUS provide some military stability in the region, than I submitt this goal would be better acheived with a less obtrusive force located in an area that would cause little to no anti-American feelings, but within striking range of our forces. Offshore basing would seem to fit the bill nicely.

My belief is that this administration merely pays lips service to goals # 2 & 3 above, while really working to achieve goal # 1.

Last edited by Devil505 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Devil5052 wrote:I think my point is pretty obvioius: Since neither H. Clinton or George Bush have any combat experience, I I dont think either one of them displays good qualification to be CinC. but Hillary is an unknown quantity while George Bush has proven his inabilty to perform that role.

So you need combat experience to be commander in chief? Abe Lincoln didn't have any.

CinC needs either combat experience or common sense......GW Bush has neither.

Do you really think we are better positioned against the threats you mentioned with a force deployed in another country than where we are now in Iraq? Militarily speaking your idea is, if it wasn't such a serious subject, laughable.

Yes I do, unless you feel that our forces are expendable in a country that doesn't want us there & is killing us!

Devil5052 wrote:What is your point here??

You said specifically Saudi Arabia. So now let me get this, if you were Commander in Chief our presents would be down to a few ships in the gulf.

Yes our "tripwire" presence at sea would be less costly, safer for our forces & still accomplish our goals.

Devil5052 wrote:people of the middle east in general, are not happy with a US occupying force in Iraq

I guess the Iraq people don't have a say? With your logic the Kuwait people don't either or any Arab nation that wants our help.

The people in Iraq want us out...they don't like being occupied.....they are killing us!

Devil5052 wrote:There aren't many roadside bombs at sea!

mine.jpg

We are pretty good at defending against mines at sea. Alot easier to defend against than housde to house fighting.Look, I hope we can agree we want the Patriots to go 19-0. Go Pats.

Last edited by Devil505 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

WOW...all weekend I was thinking about sitting down, take a break, and read some interesting posts. Never took the time to take that break….darn chores. Missed out on some interesting posts. Just when you think a specific "General & Off Topic Post" has finally bit the dust along comes some more rants. Here’s a book!!!

This quote absolutely kills me Devil…

“Look.....I am not a conspiracy buff by any means but this administration has not earned the right to have it's citizens believe a word they say on any subject. Having worked for the IRS as an investigator for many years (prior to transfering to DEA) my thoughts are this:”

Allow me to explain myself…I love listening to a good conspiracy. The things I enjoy the most about conspiracies is the individual that is sharing their conspiracy normally has no proof of what he is talking about. Or they allow their twisted imagination to psychologically invent ideas that they perceive as proof.

If you take the time and go back through the 13 pages of this thread you will see several posts have links to articles and information as counters to your “rants”. You will see that you haven’t provided any (none, zero, zippo, big goose egg) published facts that support your rants. So basically, you should change this thread to a new title, something like: “Hey come read about my opinion about Bush and Cheney (just don’t disagree with me, okay?!)”.

I like to look at life logically, apply a little common sense, and then ask a lot of questions. Your use of Caps, big fonts, and bold to share your venom about 2 politicians you loath does not thoroughly impress me but yet you really do succeed at giving me something to laugh at, something to get mad at, and sometimes…sometimes…give me something to think about. However, overall, I’m not impressed with your rants. Give us proof. I’m sorry, let me speak for myself, give me proof that all (any) of the rants or what I call “crap” that you spew are FACTS. You haven’t and in my ‘political opinion’ can’t give any educated proof. Therefore, I don’t personally consider you a Conspiracy Buff, I consider you a Conspiracy Theorist.

Some of the ‘opinions’ you have made paints me picture in my mind of you living next to that guy living in a trailer out in the desert that believes we never landed on the moon.

“that the government should get involved when the current breed of "Robber Barrons" violate federal law & collude to restrain competition & fix prices at the pump. (especialy when some of these Robber Barrons have offices in my White House!)”

What exactly is a “barron”? Do you mean “Baron”? Also, do you have hard proof of your comment about violating federal law along with people ready to testify against these “robbers”? Hey, if you have all kinds of hard cold evidence that can really paint a huge bad image of our current administration, in other words something other than your opinionated rants, please let me know because I would love to help your cause. I personally do not like criminals and would be glad to help anyone bring a criminal to justice. If it is the President and Vice President that you believe are the criminals well then I would have to let my common sense take over and say…hmmm…Bush and Cheney are Republicans….Devil says they are criminals involved with BIG OIL….why hasn’t the Democratic Legislative Branch done anything about this? Why isn’t there impeachment proceedings being televised on CNN or printed on the front page of any newspaper?

Humor side of it all….Slick Willy has fun with a cigar and also gets a knobber in the oval office and all you hear about for weeks in the media is how he “never had sexual relations with that woman”….. Now we have BIG OIL seriously involved with Bush and Cheney and Bush and Cheney are using their office and the White House to “violate federal law” and the only place I can really read about this major crime is here in the Anthracite Coal Forum.

You mention your previous career at the DEA several times…my “opinion” that’s questionable. I have a favor; if it is the DEA you are familiar with stick with that. Stay away from the military. It is quite obvious you have no military experience. You haven’t been there. You have been watching this entire Enduring Freedom and Iraqi War from your arm chair in front of your coal heat. You are making an attempt at being an “arm chair general”. “In my opinion this is what should be done…” or “this is what I would do…” What gives me the experience to make that comment…because I do/say the same thing. But, what makes me different than you is that I was there and… "The secrecy of my…” PAST “job prevents me from…” correcting your lack of knowledge of the military involvement in Iraq…..AND….Afghanistan. You have no idea what we have over there.

Quotes like this simply amaze me.

“Much easier to defend a fleet against attack........There aren't many roadside bombs at sea!”

I will admit that the picture of the contact mine from spc was classic!! It is now my background for my desk top. Brings back memories of Desert Shield and Storm. USS Tripoli Shield/Storm vets know about those. The newer technical mines are the really scary ones. USS Princeton Shield/Storm vets know about mantas. I don’t believe either ship lost any lives but there were injuries.

“But, rather than argue the point, I would be totaly satisfied with a seaborne rapid reaction force from our fleet in international waters-Gulf of Arabia. What's wrong with that idea?”

… Rapid reaction from sea dealing with what our people are doing ashore today??? What’s wrong with this idea??? We don’t have teleportation yet…until there is effective teleportation you will not have rapid reaction from sea to handle what the “ground pounders” are doing daily. “Beam me up Scotty!! Admiral Arm Chair wants me in his Stateroom to give him a debrief on our last mission.”

If my assumptions are right … (Yes I assume and I’m not afraid to make an ass out of myself, as you can see/read) you were close in age for Vietnam. Are you a Vet? Did you serve? Drafted or volunteered?

One last comment…if anyone believes in his rants, I definitely want to clear one thing up. He speaks of controlling Iraq from the sea instead of inside Iraq or any other country over there. There is a reason for 4 branches of the military…we all work together and rely on each other. One is not 100% effective without the other. Don’t forget about the Coast Guard either. When one fails, we all fail.

[quote="BugsyR"]WOW...all weekend I was thinking about sitting down, take a break, and read some interesting posts. Never took the time to take that break….darn chores. Missed out on some interesting posts. Just when you think a specific "General & Off Topic Post" has finally bit the dust along comes some more rants. Here’s a book!!!

Tell you what BugsyR.....The last time I looked, the heading for this topic was Politcal OpinionsPerhaps Richard should change it to: "Posts You Must Verify With Documentary Evidence That Will Stand Up In Court"

Sorry but I had neither the time nor inclination to read your entire rant but, without an abundance of documentary evidence attached to support your opinions, I see no point in doing so.

By the way, I have my doubts about your claims of military service as well. (Sorry, but I don't count Cub Scouts as prior military service)

If my assumptions are right … (Yes I assume and I’m not afraid to make an ass out of myself, as you can see/read) you were close in age for Vietnam. Are you a Vet? Did you serve? Drafted or volunteered?

If my assumptions are right … (Yes I assume and I’m not afraid to make an ass out of myself, as you can see/read) you were close in age for Vietnam. Are you a Vet? Did you serve? Drafted or volunteered?

Look.......Please do not feel obligated to provide "proof "of your service as I would undouibtedly question anything you could submitt here as "proof" anyway & vice versa I'm sure......it would serve no purpose. I listen to arguments, not claims of authority. I do apologise for allowing you to draw me into a personal pissing match. This is a topic where forum members are supposed to express their opinions...period. No proof is required & the only thing that matters here are your thoughts & arguments. (The only thing any of us here can really prove here is our knowledge of using coal as a heat source) I immediately was angered by your tactic of personal attack. You may disagree with my opinions & that is the very purpose of this topic... but, attack the arguments with your counter-argument not the person giving his opinion. Neither one of us is qualified to make a personal attack on the other. Let's leave it that way & just express opinions like the topic is titled.

Definites:1. I hate hypocrits above all else & I see Bush & Cheney as hypocrits( 2 priveldged men who avoided Vietnam like the plague but have no aversion to sending our sons & daughters off to a warthat they would never have had the courage to fight in)2. I have an immediate mistrust of people, born to priviledge who use their family's name/standing to avoid earning respect of their own:a. Bush got into Yale because he was a legacy (we've all seen Animal House & knows what that means)b. Bush managed to escape service in Vietnam through his father's interventionc. Bush was/is so arrogant that he didn't feel the need to even show up for much of his Nat'l Guard service

I immediately was angered by your tactic of personal attack.

Neither one of us is qualified to make a personal attack on the other

Your right I never should have personally attacked you. Why that is not honorable at all, especially being that you are here to defend yourself. I should really just personally attack people that are not here to defend themselves and then just call it my "opinion".

You offend me... so I defend my Commander in Chief.You attack my Chain of Command be ready to recieve counter fire.

So I guess I should ask you, what qualifies you to make your "Definites" quote. Oh I'm sorry...I forgot that those are just opinions

Definites:1. I hate hypocrits above all else & I see Bush & Cheney as hypocrits( 2 priveldged men who avoided Vietnam like the plague but have no aversion to sending our sons & daughters off to a warthat they would never have had the courage to fight in)2. I have an immediate mistrust of people, born to priviledge who use their family's name/standing to avoid earning respect of their own:a. Bush got into Yale because he was a legacy (we've all seen Animal House & knows what that means)b. Bush managed to escape service in Vietnam through his father's interventionc. Bush was/is so arrogant that he didn't feel the need to even show up for much of his Nat'l Guard service

I immediately was angered by your tactic of personal attack.

Neither one of us is qualified to make a personal attack on the other

Your right I never should have personally attacked you. Why that is not honorable at all, especially being that you are here to defend yourself. I should really just personally attack people that are not here to defend themselves and then just call it my "opinion".

You offend me... so I defend my Commander in Chief.You attack my Chain of Command be ready to recieve counter fire.

So I guess I should ask you, what qualifies you to make your "Definites" quote. Oh I'm sorry...I forgot that those are just opinions

Your use sarcasm does not help your argument but merely relegates it to a juvenile level.

Specificaly, my use of the word "Definites" was meant to convey opinions that I have that are definite in my mind, as oppossed to some other thoughts that I consider just possibilities.I have taken a somewhat unpopular side in this debate because my opinion is that I am correct.If you have read this entire thread, as you claim to have done, you will notice that I had a similar "friendly misunderstanding" with Coalkirk a while back. Since our verbal combat, I believe Coalkirk would agree that, while we will probably never see eye-to-eye politicaly, we have become friends & have mutual respect for eachothers views. (We definetly agree on Harman coialstoves, however!)Do not get me wrong, I am more than happy to allow my anger to get me involved in a juvenile pissing match, if that is your intention!Your statement:"You offend me... so I defend my Commander in Chief." is totaly illogical, juvenile & meaningless.Why do my opinions againt this administration "offend" you?? (are you more patriotic than I?........Do I not have a right to muy opinions?)and.......If I attack GW Bush, do you defend him no matter what? Can he do nothing you disagree with as your Commander in Chief?

Time out boys! You both have maybe gone alittle too far IMO. I like it however that you are both passionette (sp) about your political opinions. Luckily we live in a country that allows vigorous political discussion. Devil and I had a "discussion" a couple of weeks ago that also started to get out of hand. I too was not happy with the way in which he was referring to the president and vice president. Then I realized that he felt the same way about George and Dick as I did about Bill, Hillary and Al. I totally disagree with his position on many political topics but I defend his right to express them without being attacked personally. That's a lesson that I have to admit he taught me. I get so worked up about politics, particularly when arguing with someone on the polar opposite from me, that I ratchet it up to personal attacks. Thank God we were talking over the internet or I might have done worse. The bottom line is, we have to agree to disagree but do it in a civil way. When push comes to shove, we are all Americans first. We probably have alot more in common then not. Politics and religion are two topics that can reallly get the juices flowing. But lets respect one anothers right to disagree. If not, I think that's what Richard made the Flame Suit thing for. I think it was in response to the discussion Devil and me had earlier. But I'd like to see it taken down a notch.

coalkirk wrote:Time out boys! You both have maybe gone alittle too far IMO. I like it however that you are both passionette (sp) about your political opinions. Luckily we live in a country that allows vigorous political discussion. Devil and I had a "discussion" a couple of weeks ago that also started to get out of hand. I too was not happy with the way in which he was referring to the president and vice president. Then I realized that he felt the same way about George and Dick as I did about Bill, Hillary and Al. I totally disagree with his position on many political topics but I defend his right to express them without being attacked personally. That's a lesson that I have to admit he taught me. I get so worked up about politics, particularly when arguing with someone on the polar opposite from me, that I ratchet it up to personal attacks. Thank God we were talking over the internet or I might have done worse. The bottom line is, we have to agree to disagree but do it in a civil way. When push comes to shove, we are all Americans first. We probably have alot more in common then not. Politics and religion are two topics that can reallly get the juices flowing. But lets respect one anothers right to disagree. If not, I think that's what Richard made the Flame Suit thing for. I think it was in response to the discussion Devil and me had earlier. But I'd like to see it taken down a notch.

I agree with you & I apologize to BugsyR for my last sentance, which was over the top & I have edited out.